Obama may use soft power

In the early 19th century, the German strategic thinker Karl Von Clausewitz described war as a continuation of politics by other means. Since then this statement has become the golden rule in warfare. Any military confrontation must have political objectives; otherwise it carries the risk of becoming meaningless demonstration of might and will. Furthermore, the failure of the Bush administration to predict the complexities of post-Saddam Iraq and post-Taliban Afghanistan have demonstrated once again that waging wars and removing regimes are easy; nation-building and peace-making are tough. The yardstick to measuring success in any military venture is winning the peace; not war.

Currently, the Obama administration seems to be fully aware of this equation and has promised to act accordingly. A shift in policy is hence noted: return to multilateralism and seeking international backing in resolving international crises.

From North Korea, to Iran and to Syria, the US has realised the limited utility of military power and the narrowness of unilateralism. The terrible cost of the Iraq war, the "war on terror" and the war in Afghanistan is forcing the US to resort to soft power more often to achieve its interests. The Obama administration will almost certainly use pressure, diplomacy, media and the power of public opinion to get what it wants on the cheap. Joseph Nye is likely to replace Robert Kagan as the theorist of US foreign policy.

Nye, assistant secretary of defence under Bill Clinton, teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and is author of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. He defined soft power as the ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals. It differs from hard power, the ability to use economic and military might to make others follow your will. Nye's core argument is that both hard and soft powers are important in achieving US foreign policy goals, but attraction is much cheaper than coercion, and an asset that needs to be nourished.

By contrast, Kagan, an influential right wing intellectual, has repeatedly expressed his frustration over what he called the hesitation of the US government under George W. Bush to use hard power more often to achieve foreign policy goals. He has always despised Europe's way of handling international politics.

He wrote: "It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. Europe& is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity. The US, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security still &depend[s] on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus".

During his first term in office, Bush followed Kagan's advice in major foreign policy decisions. He realised a bit late though that hard power is too costly and narrow in effect. He hence tried to change course. In 2005, during a visit to Paris designed to mend relations with Europe after the Iraq war, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hinted to the new approach: "I use the word 'power' broadly, because even more important than military and indeed economic power is the power of ideas, the power of compassion, and the power of hope".

At that time many in Europe and elsewhere welcomed the new tone of the Bush administration, but wondered if it was simply sugar-coated cynicism. They soon discovered that they were absolutely right. The short thaw in US foreign policy came to an end when the Bush administration revived interest in developing low-yield nuclear devices that could be used to destroy potential enemies as part of the Bush pre-emptive doctrine.

The adoption of Nye's approach by the neo-cons of the second Bush administration was mere rhetoric. Neo-cons offered not different goals but a calmer and more measured path towards the same ones. They believed in American power and the global spread of their vision, but sought legitimate, multilateral cover to achieve material dominance.

The incoming Obama administration seems to be offering a different approach. The new president expressed genuine interest in the concept of "soft power" and has promised to heed it. In his inauguration address, Obama signalled a clean break from some of the Bush administration's policies on national security.

"Our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint, Obama said. This is the key element in the concept of "soft power" and will hopefully lead US foreign policy under Obama.

Dr Marwan Kabalan is a lecturer in Media and International Relations, Faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Syria.